Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Didn't Dr. Octopus do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Perhaps ... we should ... start a Publication Date Pool. Put a dollar on a date... and for the true skeptics they can double down Never. Dibs on May 18th. Well, tomorrow is Thursday, and we all know what that means. I'm still holding to May 18th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, tomorrow is Thursday, and we all know what that means. I'm still holding to May 18th. OK, the Thursday part is pretty much a given, although May 18 is a Friday, so just give us a good guess of the YEAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) There is definitely an "institutional" position in Science, which represents the "consensus" point of view. Which right there should be a big red flag about Science, because argument from either "agreement" or "consensus" is a logical fallacy. Noted the use of the self-defined word "proof" as opposed to "evidence", the later of which is available in abundance. So, as far as science is concerned, argument from disagreement and lack of consensus is logical and preferred? Taking your posts generally, you treat secondary and circumstantial evidences as if they were synonymous with "proof." Abundant secondary and circumstantial evidence does not equal primary or hard evidence, i.e., "proof," so no use hiding behind "abundant." (Abundant circumstantial evidence = circumstantial evidence). Without primary, hard evidence, no one, even a scientist, is obliged to concede the existence of Bigfoot. For scientists, Bigfoot is a no win proposition. If science were to front a large scale operation and research endeavor and find nothing conclusive concerning Bigfoot, then this would change nothing in the minds of many Bigfoot proponents. Scientists understand too that Bigfoot's non-existence cannot be proven. And what if a scientist sticks his neck out and authors a book or paper showing that Bigfoot likely does not exist, and then a Bigfoot is hit and killed by a tractor-trailer on an interstate? So, I really do not understand why proponents attack science. What do you guys and gals want? Have science accept the existence of Bigfoot without a specimen? In other words, have science as a general body of knowledge agree with you about Bigfoot, belief before hard evidence?. "It's .... real, it's really real! Science sez so!" Edited April 5, 2012 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 You describe a remarkably timid science, is that how you describe the true greats from science past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 So, I really do not understand why proponents attack science. What do you guys and gals want? Don't lump me in with that. I'm just looking for more and thorough science, since it is the inherent position of a proponent that science hasn't looked hard enough yet, or hasn't had the tools to examine some of the evidence long enough. I can imagine Mulder agrees with me since he would know discovery awaits, if he actually saw one. Shall we see skeptics attacking or rejecting "science" if proof emerges? Shall we see the arguments swap hands?....Stay tuned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Jerry, Nice post! Well done! I do believe you were addressing Mudler directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I can't see what all the fuss is about. A correct theory will be confirmed by experimental findings. Experimental findings are confirmed by replication by others. Applying this to the case of the Ketchum paper, whatever the findings are, it should possible to test those findings by future experiments on other DNA specimens as chance may find them. There is plenty reason to believe that more DNA specimens will become available. The "hair trap" technique is a significant advance in obtaining hair follicle remains. Also there are other, as yet, untested specimens already available to Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I would consider blood, hair, tissue, nail, and bone hard evidence. Am I mistaken in that assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 All science has to say, for this skeptic, is something along the lines of this: "We have sequenced DNA never before seen that comes from such and such lineage, and falls here and there in the genome, has such and such markers etc....etc...DNA of course, cannot be faked. This new DNA clearly falls into the hominid branch and until now was unknown to exist to science." That's it, that's all I would need. Of course I would need tthe consensus of science to retest and validate and agree. But I can't see that as being a problem. DNA can't lie. No, science doesn't have to even decide WHAT it is they found that it came from. As long as they have unknown before and unplacable DNA that would be enough for me to tip the scales and say, now, along with circumstantial evidence, I am of the opinion BF probably does indeed exist. Would I like a slam dunk? Sure. I would love for the DNA details to reveal conclusively what it must be from, or at least close to it. But that's not necessary for me. Just have new, unknown DNA and where the consensus of science believes it may fall in the tree. That's all I need. Not to quite believe, but to be more than satisfied that there is now a real chance they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 The journal where I was expecting the Ketchum paper to appear is a monthly journal. It just made available its April issue and there was no Ketchum paper there. Unless the paper is destined for a different journal, it seems that the paper will not come out for at least another month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 @WTB: I would suspect that the paper may come to a conclusion very similar....I think it would put some serious serious weight to the existence of such a creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I don't see how the results can be anything other than what you described WTB1, I don't believe at this point it could be a slam dunk without a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Jodie - do you think (and others I guess!) that if this report was accompanied by approx 22 minutes of video and close ups of the creature(s) a sample came from would put it in 'lay up' territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well I put the slam dunk in there in case my understanding of DNA falls short. Depending on what all they can do with it I left the possibility of a slam dunk open. I suppose they MAY be able to tell if it's bipedal depending on where it falls, or at least could be bipedal. Based on the hair/fur they may be able to tell who knows what. But just new, before unknown primate DNA would be enough to tip the scales. And it would be a lot of fun. Now that I knew there was a real possibility I can go back and look with a new eye at all those video's I've seen a hundred times, including Patty, and pick them apart deciding which ones are real now knowing they could be video's of real BF's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts